skirtcafe.org

Skirt Cafe is an on-line community dedicated to exploring, promoting and advocating skirts and kilts as a fashion choice for men, formerly known as men in skirts. We do this in the context of men's fashion freedom --- an expansion of choices beyond those commonly available for men to include kilts, skirts and other garments. We recognize a diversity of styles our members feel comfortable wearing, and do not exclude any potential choices. Continuing dialog on gender is encouraged in the context of fashion freedom for men. See here for more details.

I think Im being misunderstood again. I not claiming to be a crossdresser. Im trying to say that Im not going to spend a lot of time arguing with people on the street about it. If they insist on calling me a crossdresser then Im just going to let it be. That was the point of my comment. It doesn't matter what Im called.... Ill always be me, no matter what Im wearing or doing.

Why does everyone always assume Im always on some kind of twisted tangent all of the time? What's wrong with simply trying to make peace with a stereotype that frankly isn't going anywhere any time soon. Is it right? Of course not. But what do I have to gain by agonizing over a label? If they want to call me a crossdresser, a homosexual, a weirdo, a pervert, a dinglemaflopper, a dog, cat, house, tree..... its not going to change what I am. I am me, the subject of which is a matter between myself and my own ego.

I find myself in agreement with your comments, yet Im under the impression that Im not agreed with.... thus I can only conclude there has been a gross misinterpretation of my point.

I've just reviewed my comment again. I still can't find anything that seemed to imply that I felt we are all crossdressers. I wrote that societies view of us in thr present is that they believe us to be crossdressers. To which I wrote that I dissagree and emphisized the point that it doesn't matter.

Sinned wrote:Sorry MS but I'm with Carl and Reaperan here. I wear skirts as part of my wardrobe along with trousers, shorts and other apparel. It doesn't make me fir into any of the boxes cross or trans - like RM I'm my own self. The end. And the only person whose opinion I value is MOH's and that's where my really only problem lies because she doesn't like it - mainly. I wish with my whole heart that she could support me.

I think you summed it up very well, Dennis, though I would add that I know there are all types who read and contribute to these fora, and I feel some kinship to all of them, though there is no category that sums up my personal feelings. I would suspect that is true for most of us.

I do not consider myself a crossdresser or transvestite because I don't care to impersonate a woman. I borrow from fashion that is typically intended for females, depending on both my attraction to the style and the matter of finding that style that will fit a 6'2" man, and which does not seem, to my tastes, to be overly absurd for a 58 year-old to adopt. In some peoples views, donning any item sold from the female side of the isle makes me a crossdresser. I disagree with that idea, based on my own definitions.

But does it make me trans-? I don't think so, but it does tie me to the Trans- community, if only by empathy for others who swim against the tide of prejudices. And though I don't view myself as a victim, I understand those who truly are. So I don't see myself as trans- anything, but I do feel myself a part of Trans- as a social awakening of the diversity of human consciousness, personal freedom, and individual worth.

In most of the random conversations I've had whilst skirted, here are some FAQs:Are you gay?Is that a Kilt?Why?However, the most frequent one, "are you a cross-dresser/transvestite"?I always make a point of not showing the slightest offence or defence toward this.These people are surprised and curious, they want to get their thoughts about a guy in a skirt in perspective. For them, part of that process is to apply a label based on their own notions. I will answer accordingly, usually have a friendly chat and perhaps change those notions forever.I still say that this would never happen to me in trousers. A lady acquaintance complimented my choice of shoes a few days ago, that's fine.Yesterday,she told me that she had recommended them to her son. Was I right/wrong to tell her that they were a female shoe, admittedly almost unigender?Steve.

moonshadow wrote:I wrote that societies view of us in thr present is that they believe us to be crossdressers. To which I wrote that I dissagree and emphisized the point that it doesn't matter.

This is the thrust I was writing to as well -- that today's views on the matter are likely to be misguided at best and outright errant at worst.

It's only going to be the most open-minded folks who will be willing at first blush to entertain an idea other than what is already "accepted knowledge" -- and that, sadly, is that any bloke in a skirt is automatically a crossdresser. Sadder, still, is that open minds are in entirely too-short supply at the moment.

So, yes, "they" likely lump "us" into the incorrect (perhaps) bucket (and note that I tried very hard to refrain from the "us vs. them" mentality) and sometimes getting tossed into the wrong bucket can yield a whole lot of grief that rational folks would rather avoid.

moonshadow wrote:...what do I have to gain by agonizing over a label? If they want to call me a crossdresser, a homosexual, a weirdo, a pervert, a dinglemaflopper, a dog, cat, house, tree..... its not going to change what I am. I am me, the subject of which is a matter between myself and my own ego...

My thoughts exactly.

And yet we have this phenomenon of men dressed in skirts sitting in front of their computers and vigorously denying they're cross-dressers.

Wearing a skirt. From across the aisle.

And anyway, what's so bad about being a cross-dresser? Or maybe half of one (from the waist down).

dillon wrote:I do not consider myself a crossdresser or transvestite because I don't care to impersonate a woman. I borrow from fashion that is typically intended for females, depending on both my attraction to the style and the matter of finding that style that will fit a 6'2" man, and which does not seem, to my tastes, to be overly absurd for a 58 year-old to adopt. In some peoples views, donning any item sold from the female side of the isle makes me a crossdresser. I disagree with that idea, based on my own definitions.

But does it make me trans-? I don't think so, but it does tie me to the Trans- community, if only by empathy for others who swim against the tide of prejudices. And though I don't view myself as a victim, I understand those who truly are. So I don't see myself as trans- anything, but I do feel myself a part of Trans- as a social awakening of the diversity of human consciousness, personal freedom, and individual worth.

Well said, and I agree. I don't like labels, because every person has his or her own way of defining them. There is an entire gray-scale from he-man macho to perfect female impersonation. Imagine this scale ranging from 0 to 100. Each "typically intended for or used by females" adornment or behavior would be worth a number of points. You could assign points for clothing (a women's belt or plain buttoned shirt sold for women but not feminine looking would have a couple of points, a frilly lacy dress would have lots), jewelry (a simple slender proportioned ring to fancy dangling earrings), body presentation (shaving underarms to full make-up & wig), and behavior (various feminine mannerisms). Someone near the bottom of the scale would clearly not be a crossdresser, but someone at the top would clearly be one. One person's definition might fall at, say, 32 out of 100, while another's might be at 63. My own personal definition, like DIllon's, depends on the desire to emulate or impersonate a woman (femulation), and so I reject the label for myself, but I enjoy the "freestyler" label to describe going a bit further along the scale than mere skirt-wearing. As for simply wearing a skirt, I don't consider that freestyling, unless it's a really frilly, lacy skirt; It's just me in a skirt, being comfortable, maybe untraditional, but as masculine as me in pants.

Wearing a certain skirt might fit a very narrow and technical definition of crossdressing, but so what? Owning a car may fit someone's definition of extravagance. Someone passing very slowly through a stop sign without coming to a complete stop might fit someone's definition of a scofflaw or a bad driver.

By the way, the "transvestite" label is seen as outdated and derogatory by the self-described crossdressers on their forums elsewhere (at least on the one I looked into a few years ago out of curiosity).

moonshadow wrote: A very recent example of this is the use of the word "gay". When just a few decades ago gay, as we all know defined someone who was happy, joyful, and carefree. I hear the classic definition more and more around this time a year as it pops up in classic Christmas songs.

Gentlemen calm down will ya. Moonshadow was saying that regardless of what society labels him as he will continue to be himself and not worry over the label others in this world place on him for a guy wearing skirts. I think you all missed what he was saying. He wasn't labeling any of you in the way you took it he was talking in general on how society may look at him as.

¨*•.¸¸¸.•*¨* •☆Have a wonderful day! ☆•*•.¸¸¸.•*¨* * It's good to look at those we love with fresh eyes whenever we can to remind us how lucky we are to have their light in our lives.

crfriend wrote:This is the thrust I was writing to as well -- that today's views on the matter are likely to be misguided at best and outright errant at worst.

It's only going to be the most open-minded folks who will be willing at first blush to entertain an idea other than what is already "accepted knowledge" -- and that, sadly, is that any bloke in a skirt is automatically a crossdresser. Sadder, still, is that open minds are in entirely too-short supply at the moment.

So, yes, "they" likely lump "us" into the incorrect (perhaps) bucket (and note that I tried very hard to refrain from the "us vs. them" mentality) and sometimes getting tossed into the wrong bucket can yield a whole lot of grief that rational folks would rather avoid.

True. And I'm glad I was taken correctly. This is somewhat of a difficult subject to convey while trying to stay somewhat neutral on the subject.

Some may call me a wise man.... some may call me a fool... no matter what I'm called, it won't change the content of my brain nor my IQ level. It's all a matter of perspective. Such as it is with crossdressing vs men in skirts. Regardless of one's opinion on this subject, I like to think the one thing we can all agree on is that men in (women's) skirts and/or crossdressers are both part of a subculture of wearing clothes that is normally not associated with the male gender. It's the one common denominator that both groups share. Another common view is that we both want the freedom to choose. Which is why I personally believe that we should be allies, and not snubbing our noses up at each other. When the right wing zealots come crashing down on us, and that day could very well be not far off, all of us will need to circle the wagons and fight back. I'm happy to offer a supportive word to any crossdresser that's having a hard row to hoe at the moment.

Which brings me to Caultrons comment:

Caultron wrote:And yet we have this phenomenon of men dressed in skirts sitting in front of their computers and vigorously denying they're cross-dressers.

Wearing a skirt. From across the aisle.

And anyway, what's so bad about being a cross-dresser? Or maybe half of one (from the waist down).

I couldn't help but chuckle a little at the first line. You're point is well received. No, it doesn't really matter.

And in my view, there's nothing wrong with being a crossdresser if that's your thing. Some of them can pull it off quite well. Unfortunately I don't think I have the chops to be "passable". I've seen some of the photo's, and I'll go on to say that I believe it's rather like an art, or a craft. It's certainly not something learned overnight. Some of those "girls" look like they've had years of practice, and they act more lady like than most ladies I know. Kudos to them!

The irony of this whole thing is that in 100 years time, the stereotypical "American man" may very well be a woman, and the prim and proper American "lady" may very well be a man!

moonshadow wrote: A very recent example of this is the use of the word "gay". When just a few decades ago gay, as we all know defined someone who was happy, joyful, and carefree. I hear the classic definition more and more around this time a year as it pops up in classic Christmas songs.

Are you referencing "Don we now our gay apparel"?

Thank you! YES. I knew the song existed but at the moment it eluded me! Yet my mind tells me there are a few more carols that employ the word, but again, I come up short on an example.